California Law Mandates That Public School Children Be Taught About State’s Genocide of Indigenous Peoples

by Gary Olson / October 19th, 2024

From the time the Europeans arrived on American shores, the U.S. government authorized more than 1,500 wars and attacks on Indigenous people and at the conclusion of the “Indian wars” in the late 19th century, of the estimated 10 million to 15 million native peoples, fewer than 238,000 remained. In the past I’ve written about these efforts in the Great Plains and upper Midwest. I’m now spending some time  in Santa Barbara, California which has prompted my looking into that state’s role in the great American genocide. The Santa Barbara region was inhabited by Chumash people for at least 11,000 years and before the European invaders arrived the population was some 18,000. By 1900 it had declined to less than 500 and today it’s leveled off at about 5000.

A new California law, which takes effect on January 1, 2025, requires that public schools begin teaching about the state’s treatment of Indigenous peoples. The State Department of Education must consult with tribes when updating the social studies curriculum and several tribes are advocating the inclusion of material contained in UCLA professor Benjamin Madley’s  book, An American Genocide: The United States and the California Indian Catastrophe, 1846-1873. This is the first comprehensive account of the state-sanctioned murder of California’s Native People. Madley documents how state and federal governments employed their legitimizing authority for the genocide and Congress financially underwrote California’s extinction campaign.

The new legislation was set in motion five years ago when California Gov. Gavin Newsome publicly apologized for the “war of extermination” pronounced by Peter Burnett, the state’s first governor in 1851.  Newsome said that at time, state law required that Indigenous peoples be removed from their land, children separated from their families, native people stripped of their language and culture and a system of indentured servitude was begun. Under Gov. Burnett, California’s Indigenous population was reduced by 80 percent.

In 1846, U.S. troops took control of California from Mexico and in 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the war with Mexico. Mexico ceded California and its other northern territories for 15 million dollars. On January 6, 1851, the new governor of California said the following about the “Indians” in his inaugural address: “That war of extermination will continue to be waged between the races until the Indian is extinct. While we cannot anticipate this result with painful regret, the inevitable destruction of a race is beyond the power of wisdom of man to avert.” California Senator John B. Weller declared of the Indigene, “Humanity may forbid, but the interests of the white man demands their extinction.” This “myth of inevitable extinction”  fueled the ideology that Indigenes were destined to vanish, that it was simply their fate and unstoppable.

And in case there remains any doubt that this was not official policy, we know that the men who “killed thousands of Indians from the 1840s to the 1870s were paid by the state of California and the federal government…they filed expenses and were reimbursed.” (Tom Fuller, “Hastings Law Grapples with the Founder’s Involvement with Native Massacres,” NYT, (pay wall, updated November 4, 2021). It should be noted that with the outbreak of the Civil War,  California sent 15,725 volunteers to serve in the Union Army. However there so many volunteers that enough remained at home to serve as the primary agent of the killing machine. Furtherduring the Civil War the Union government’s treasury was running perilously low but Congress still allotted major funding to the California Volunteers for their  Indigene-hunting operation. Madley calculates that at the end of the Civil War, only 34,000 Indians remained from from 150,000 in 1845. Limited attacks continued until 1871 when it was beginning to find any more Inidigenes left to kill. The decline was caused by killings, disease, starvation and massacres. Madley estimates that the “state spent 1.7 million — a staggering sum in its day — to murder some 16,000 people.”

My hope (perhaps a fantasy) is that Indigenous and non-Indigenous public school kids in California will be deprogrammed and learn that genocide, like slavery, was part of the inherent capitalist logic of dispossesion.   Will they be exposed to the truth that there exists a glaring contemporay parallel to this history in Israel’s “plausible genocide” (ICJ) in Gaza and the future ethnic cleansing of the West Bank? Young Indigenous peoples understand that they are the descendants of genocide as the banner  flown by the Oglala Lakota’s Youth Council in South Dakota reads, “From Pine Ridge to Palestine.” Will school chidren learn, as Middle East Eye‘s Jonathan Cook points out, that Israel is now finishing the job it began in 1948? At least as important, will they be encouraged to understand that, as in the 1840-1871 period in California, the U.S. government is not only backing this modern day war of extermination but its actions are wholly consonant with the objective of U.S. imperialism in its efforts to maintain America’s global empire? Will they learn that both Israel and the United States were settler-colonial state projects and not as the official narratives proclaim, “nations of immigrants.”FacebooTwitterRedditEmail

Gary Olson is Professor Emeritus at Moravian College, Bethlehem, PA. Contact: garylolson416@gmail.com. Per usual, thanks to Kathleen Kelly, my in-house ed. Read other articles by Gary.

U$A

Tenants Nationwide Call for Social Housing

By Amee Chew

October 18, 2024

Source: Nonprofit Quarterly


Image credit: Seattle City Council on Wikimedia Commons

Across the country, renters and unhoused people are organizing to demand that all levels of government address the nation’s housing crisis.

On September 25–28, housing justice organizations held National Housing Days of Action, and low-income people put their bodies on the line. In Washington, DC, dozens were arrested for calling for generous public funding for affordable housing at the office of Representative Steve Womack (R-AR), who chairs the US House subcommittee on housing appropriations.

In many cities—including Little Rock, AR; Bridgeport, CT; Lewiston, ME; Louisville, KY, Philadelphia, PA; and Los Angeles, CA—tenants, unhoused people, and mobile home residents joined together in the actions. In the “swing state” of Nevada, hundreds marched in Las Vegas with signs proclaiming “We Rent, We Vote” to remind politicians that renters are a key voting bloc in the November elections—and strongly favor rent control and deeply affordable, publicly provided housing.

In California, hundreds of people rallied in Sacramento, where Governor Gavin Newsom (D) recently issued an executive order for state agencies to sweep homeless encampments, threatening to cut funding to localities that do not comply. Newsom issued his order after the US Supreme Court’s verdict in Grants Pass, OR v. Johnson affirmed punishing people for sleeping outside, even if there is no other shelter available. Rally participants decried the criminalization of homelessness, calling instead for tenant protections and for the state to fully fund one million truly affordable homes.

These campaigns are part of a growing grassroots movement that is coalescing behind the notion of social housing.
What Is Social Housing?

Social housing means homes for people, not profit. It means treating housing as a public good and a basic human need, rather than as a speculative commodity. Many housing justice organizations define social housing as housing that is permanently and deeply affordable, even for the lowest income households.

Social housing is publicly owned or under democratic community control. It can never be resold for profit, and for-profit investors are barred or restricted. It is democratically managed through the input of resident associations, tenant unions, and surrounding communities. It can include quality public housing, permanently affordable and accessible housing owned by mission-driven nonprofits, supportive housing for the recently unhoused, as well as models for nonprofit community control such as resident-owned community land trusts and limited equity cooperatives.

Public housing—directly funded by the government and hence affordable to the lowest income people—is a fundamental cornerstone of social housing. In the United States, public housing is a form of social housing that has been around for generations. Although undermined by decades of cuts and neglect, it still serves as one of the only forms of deeply affordable housing options left, housing 860,000 families nationwide.
A Movement Emerges

To advance social housing and other housing justice goals, renters are organizing against the outsized influence of Wall Street investors and corporate landlords in our nation’s profit-driven housing system.

Renters Rising, a national association of low-income tenants who have corporate landlords, was launched in 2021 by community groups with the support of the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD) and has rapidly grown to a membership of over 21,000 renters nationwide. Additionally, in 2024, five tenant unions joined forces to form a national Tenant Union Federation.

As rents continue to skyrocket, these groups and others are fighting back on multiple fronts. They have won local rent stabilization ordinances in such places as Saint Paul, MN; Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties in Maryland; and South Portland, ME.

They have also advocated for a “housing first” approach to homelessness. As unhoused groups point out, rising housing costs are a primary driver of homelessness—more than mental illness, drug use, and other factors. Prioritizing rapid rehousing without first imposing other requirements decreases homelessness and gets people back on their feet.
Social Housing Momentum Builds

Momentum around social housing is growing. On September 18, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Senator Tina Smith (D-MN) introduced the Homes Act, which would establish a national Social Housing Development Authority with the power to acquire and convert vacant, tax-foreclosed, or distressed properties—many of which are currently corporate-owned—into social housing.

The bill builds on local and state efforts. A New York bill for a Social Housing Development Authority, introduced in February, would create social housing and cap rents at 25 percent of household income. New York City tenant groups, campaigning for a “Livable New York,” are demanding green social housing for all, funded by taxes on the rich. In California, housing justice groups won the passage of SB 555, which mandates a government study on developing below-market social housing for households “who are unable to afford market rents.”

We are also seeing organizing in opposition to corporate landlords at the grassroots level.

In late 2019, for example, a collective of unhoused mothers in Oakland, CA, entered a vacant home owned by a corporate landlord, and occupied it for months with community support. The group, called Moms 4 Housing, won the property’s transfer to a local community land trust. The home now serves as transitional housing for mothers and children. The campaign also led to the creation of a statewide housing acquisition fund, and inspired additional tenant-led community land trust organizing.

The campaign also captured national attention and raised awareness that vacant homes vastly outnumber unhoused people. Nationwide, 16 million homes sit vacant; in fact, there are 28 vacant homes for every unhoused person in the United States.

From California to Texas to New York, tenant unions are exposing some of the problems in government-subsidized but profit-driven “affordable housing.” CASA, a national power building organization, notes that tenant unions, because they represent a collective, can help ensure that people who are more vulnerable to exclusion, “such as immigrants and people with criminal records, are able to access social housing.”

For example, in Hyattsville, MD, immigrant renters affiliated with CASA formed a tenant union and went on an 18-month rent strike, winning transfer of their building to a more mission-driven landlord who agreed to affordability requirements.

The work of these groups is inspiring, but difficult. Advocates can help expand organizing protections for those propelling the movement forward. All levels of government can enact legislation to ensure tenant unions have the universal right to organize and bargain collectively, as recognized in San Francisco’s Union at Home ordinance.
Social Housing for Whom?

Social housing must first serve and prioritize those most excluded by for-profit developers and landlords. New construction is often geared at luxury buyers, even though poorer renter households—of whom over 11 million qualify as “extremely low income” in government classifications—have the greatest housing needs.

According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, extremely low-income renters comprise the large majority—69 percent—of severely cost-burdened renters who must spend over half their income on housing. All told, the market falls 7.3 million homes short of the housing these families need. Yet aside from public housing, government affordability guidelines and subsidies are usually aimed at families in higher income brackets. For the neediest, so-called “affordable housing” subsidized by the government is usually still out of reach.

If social housing is to effectively meet our housing emergency and stop rising homelessness, it must ensure the poorest families are not excluded again. To achieve this requires applying principles of “targeted universalism”—that is, setting universal goals while using processes targeted at specific groups to achieve them.

What does it look like to apply targeted universalism to social housing? Social housing should be widely available, including to moderate-income households, in order to achieve lasting and widespread affordability across the housing system. Yet because housing production takes time, to most effectively curb homelessness and displacement and to best advance racial, gender, and economic justice goals, people with the most need must benefit first.

“Building only for the middle class and hoping for it to trickle down—that doesn’t really work. That’s why we have a housing crisis,” says Alex Vazquez, national organizing director at CASA. “It’s time we shift our focus to those most in need: the poorest, people with disabilities, the unhoused, seniors, individuals with [criminal] records, undocumented immigrants, single mothers with children, and other marginalized groups.”

Whether social housing ends up being truly accessible hinges upon how it’s financed. Housing is expensive to build. Creating housing that’s affordable to the poorest households in need—at the scale of need—requires generous, direct upfront public funding.
Today’s Opportunity

Today, politicians have an opportunity to align housing policy with the growing movement for social housing on the ground—and with our nation’s dire need.

In July, responding to movement demands, President Joe Biden’s administration called on Congress to pass a temporary rent cap on corporate-owned properties. Over 50 base-building organizations sent a letter demanding that Biden go further, including by issuing executive orders to establish an Office of Social Housing and immediately cap rents in federally insured properties.

That office would be part of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and would align existing programs with social housing goals, with the input of housing justice organizations. In August, on the campaign trail, Vice President Kamala Harris proposed a $40 billion Innovation Fund to offer competitive grants that could potentially fund permanently affordable social housing—if people organize to ensure the money is spent this way.

Yet thus far, the Biden-Harris administration has leaned heavily on expanding the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) program, a deeply flawed and inefficient policy that hinges on tax breaks to Wall Street investors. Because it is ultimately profit-driven, LIHTC typically creates “affordable housing” that is often not truly affordable. And despite expending public dollars, it imposes only temporary affordability measures on homes, benefiting investors at the expense of low-income residents, who are often pushed out by rent hikes both before and after affordability requirements expire.

Our government must instead renew generous direct public funding to create deeply affordable housing. Vienna, Austria, where most residents live in social housing, is often cited as an international example of how social housing can preserve affordability for the long term. Efforts in Vienna began with public housing that first targeted the neediest.1 The city’s social housing was also directly funded by levying new taxes on the rich. We can heed these lessons on who to prioritize and how.

Renters Rising and partner groups are calling for federal legislation to implement these principles and invest $1 trillion over 10 years to create over 12 million permanently and deeply affordable homes. This amount is needed to match the actual scale of our current crisis, where over 16 million households qualify for federal housing assistance but receive none. For an additional $230 billion, Congress could also repair and green our existing public housing. There is budgetary room to direct spending toward housing. Military spending, for example, is $850 billion a year—over eight times what movement leaders are recommending for housing.

“We all deserve a home. Fair housing is a right. A place to sleep at night, these are basic human needs,” says Jessica Torres, a lead tenant organizer at Action NC who is organizing fellow mobile home residents. “The federal government should be taking action now. We’re supposed to be one of the richest countries but have some of the highest homelessness. How can you punish people for finding a place to sleep and lay their heads?”

Peter Marcuse, “A Useful Installment of Socialist Work: Housing in Red Vienna in the 1920s,” in Critical Perspectives on Housing, ed. Rachel G. Bratt, Chester W. Hartman, and Ann Meyerson (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1986), 563-4, 579.


Amee Chew is a senior research analyst at the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD), and author of the report, Social Housing for All: A Vision for Thriving Communities, Renter Power, and Racial Justice, co-produced by CPD and Renters Rising. She has a PhD in American Studies & Ethnicity and has worked with movement organizations in communities of color for over a decade, as a collaborative researcher, popular educator, and organizer of immigrant workers and tenants.

UN Troops in Lebanon Can Shoot Back at Israel

U.N. peacekeepers in Lebanon are permitted to use force in several circumstances, including self-defense and prevention of hostile action in its area of deployment

By Joe Lauria

October 16, 2024

Source: Consortium News

UNIFIL logistical convoy departed Naqoura to visit the Nepalese, Indian and Serbian positions crossing entire UNIFIL area of operations. South Lebanon, July 2, 2024. (Pasqual Gorrizz/UN Photo)

United Nations peacekeepers who have been fired upon by Israel can fire back at them according to a 2006 U.N. Security Council resolution.

Paragraph 12 of Resolution 1701, which helped bring about an end of fighting in the 33-day Israel-Hezbollah conflict in 2006, says that the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL):


“Acting in support of a request from the Government of Lebanon to deploy an international force to assist it to exercise its authority throughout the territory, authorizes UNIFIL to take all necessary action in areas of deployment of its forces and as it deems within its capabilities, to ensure that its area of operations is not utilized for hostile activities of any kind, to resist attempts by forceful means to prevent it from discharging its duties under the mandate of the Security Council, and to protect United Nations personnel, facilities, installations and equipment … ” [Emphasis added.]

Repeated attacks by Israel Defense Force (IDF) beginning last week and continuing until at least Sunday, accurately fit the description of “hostile activities” in UNIFIL’s “areas of deployment.”

While the unanimous resolution was not passed under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter allowing U.N. troops to use force to impose its mandate — including in this case to disarm combatants, including Hezbollah — all U.N. peacekeeping operations retain the right to use force in self-defense.

“UNIFIL commanders have sufficient authority to act forcefully when confronted with hostile activity of any kind,” UNIFIL said in a statement at the time of Resolution 1701’s adoption.

IDF Begins Attacks

After IDF troops threatened Irish U.N. peacekeepers last week Irish President Michael D. Higgins stood up to Israel and the Israelis backed down. However there were more incidents later in the week, with the Israelis injuring U.N. soldiers from Indonesia and Sri Lanka.

Neither UNIFIL nor U.N. Headquarters in New York have publicly reiterated that the peacekeepers can shoot back at the Israelis if they are attacked.

At the daily noon briefing in New York on Friday, a U.N. spokesman was only asked if the U.N. was considering withdrawing peacekeepers given the danger Israel is putting them in.

On Sunday, the secretary-general’s spokesman put out this statement:


“Against the backdrop of the ongoing hostilities in southern Lebanon and despite attacks that have hit United Nations positions, injuring a number of peacekeepers in the past several days, UNIFIL peacekeepers remain in all positions and the UN flag continues to fly. The Secretary-General pays tribute to the dedicated personnel of UNIFIL.

The Secretary-General reiterates that the safety and security of UN personnel and property must be guaranteed and that the inviolability of UN premises must be respected at all times without qualification. In a deeply worrying incident that occurred today, the entrance door of a UN position was deliberately breached by IDF armored vehicles.

UNIFIL continuously assesses and reviews all factors to determine its posture and presence. The mission is taking all possible measures to ensure the protection of its peacekeepers. UNIFIL’s role and its presence in southern Lebanon is mandated by the UN Security Council. In this context, UNIFIL is committed to preserving its capacity to support a diplomatic solution based on resolution 1701, which is the only possible way forward.

The Secretary-General reiterates that UNIFIL personnel and its premises must never be targeted. Attacks against peacekeepers are in breach of international law, including international humanitarian law. They may constitute a war crime.

He calls on all parties, including the IDF, to refrain from any and all actions that put our peacekeepers at risk. The Secretary-General takes the opportunity to reiterate the call for a cessation of hostilities and the full implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701.

Stéphane Dujarric, Spokesman for the Secretary-General.”

The statement says “UNIFIL is committed to preserving its capacity to support a diplomatic solution based on resolution 1701, which is the only possible way forward.”

So far the U.N. is standing its ground and refusing Israeli demands to redeploy, despite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday essentially ordering the peacekeepers to evacuate the region “immediately.” Netanyahu told UNIFIL in a video to get its soldiers “out of harm’s way,” calling them “hostages of Hezbollah.”

While saying the Israeli attacks might constitute war crimes, so far the U.N. has not issued a warning to Israel that the U.N. is within its rights to shoot back.

What would happen if U.N. troops fired back at Israel? One possibility, depending on the circumstances, is that the IDF would back off. But another is that they would engage the peacekeepers in a firefight.

Would anyone be surprised if Israel brought heavier arms to bear and killed U.N. soldiers given what it has gotten away with so far in the past year, namely a “plausible” case of genocide in Gaza, according to the International Court of Justice, as well as expanding attacks on the West Bank and invading and bombing Lebanon?

International Alarm

So far, Israel’s actions against UNIFIL have brought some measure of international condemnation. Sri Lanka “strongly condemned” the attack by Israel that wounded two of its peacekeeper on Friday. This followed an Israeli attack on a U.N. observation tower on Thursday, injuring two Indonesian peacekeepers.

“An observer tower with a round from a tank directly into it, which is a very small target, has to be very deliberate,” Lt. Gen. Seán Clancy, chief of staff of the Irish Defence Forces, told Irish broadcaster RTÉ.

“So from a military perspective, this is not an accidental act. It’s a direct act,” he said. “Whether its indiscipline or directed, either way it is not conscionable or allowable.”

The BBC reported that, “The leaders of France, Italy, and Spain have also condemned Israel’s actions, saying in a joint statement that they were unjustifiable and should immediately end.”

China expressed “grave concern and strong condemnation,” as India did about the “deteriorating security situation along the Blue Line.”

India’s Ministry of External Affairs said: “Inviolability of UN premises must be respected by all and appropriate measures taken to ensure the safety of UN peacekeepers and the sanctity of their mandate.”

President Joe Biden said Friday he was “absolutely, positively” urging Israel to stop targeting U.N. peacekeepers, Politico reported, as he has called for a ceasefire in Gaza without cutting off aid or munitions.

Forty of the 50 nations whose soldiers make up UNIFIL also issued a joint statement condemning Israel’s attacks.

Dire Scenarios

If the U.N. publicly warned Israel it had the mandate to return fire and then did nothing when attacked, or if it withdrew, it would bring humiliation on the U.N.

If UNIFIL continues to stand its ground and returns fire, inviting a severe Israeli response leading to the deaths of U.N. peacekeepers, would Israel get away with it after an initial outcry?

There have been zero red lines drawn by Western nations in exchange for supporting Israel with arms, money and political cover.

If a plausible case of genocide won’t stop them from backing Israel, would dead U.N. peacekeepers? Is the inviolability of U.N. troops as expendable as scores of thousands of Palestinian lives?

India is the Land of the Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi: Sonam Wangchuk Please Take Note

By Badri Raina

October 17, 2024

Source: The Wire


Sonam Wangchuk speaks to The Wire at Delhi's Ladakh Bhavan.

Back in 2022, addressing the Rotary International World Convention virtually, Prime minister Narendra Modi had said “India is the land of the Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi who showed in action what living for others is all about.”

He, went on to say “India is leading efforts for environmental protection. Sustainable development is the need of the hour. Inspired by our centuries old ethos of living in harmony with nature, the 1.4 billion Indians are making every possible effort to make earth cleaner and greener”.

Modi noted also how we live in an “interrelated and interconnected” world, yet, alas, the Delhi Police seems not to have listened to his address, certainly not to what has been cited from the report above.

Had they so listened, the arch Gandhian and Buddhist, Sonam Wangchuk of Ladakh may have fared better in the nation’s capital.

Trudging on foot all the way from the Himalayas to New Delhi, along with some 150 satyagrahis, with neither banners nor lathis in tow, peaceful as you can get, Wangchuk, a Ramon Magsaysay awardee whose work in the area of environmental protection and innovation has drawn global attention, had hoped to pay obeisance at the samadhi of Mahatma Gandhi at Rajghat.

Only to discover that Gandhians and Buddhists, after all, may not be so in favour with the powers-that-be.

And note the irony that the satyagrahis led by Wangchuk were carrying to the capital precisely anxieties about “environmental protection and sustainable development” and the need to live “in harmony with nature” in relation to that most fragile and sensitive of regions called Ladakh.

It has been their grave concern that rapacious “wealth creators” have been eyeing the region for industrial exploitation – a course of action guaranteed to destroy the entirety of the Himalayan ecosystem.

Ladakhis were promised that the territory would be listed in the 6th schedule of the Constitution so that they would have the autonomy to possess their land, water, and all other natural resources with constitutional guarantee, just as tribal areas of Assam, Tripura, Meghalaya (all BJP -ruled) have (see Bharatiya Janata Party Manifesto of 2019).

As we have seen happen so often over the past ten years, promises have not been made necessarily for being kept. The Gandhian and Buddhist Wangchuk next determined to follow our hallowed Gandhian practice further to sit on a fast at Jantar Mantar.

The authorities in Delhi thought this a highly dangerous act and prevented him from camping in that space where for years on end now peaceful protests are allowed, albeit gingerly.

So, Wangchuk removed himself to Ladakh Bhavan to begin his fast. At which many Gandhians began to visit the site and join Wangchuk’s satyagraha.

Only to be unceremoniously detained and removed by the police. The satyagrahis next chose a sequestered park to carry out their silent and peaceful protest. But the police again would have none of it.

The danger to law and order from the handful of Gandhian and Buddhist satyagrahis was thought lethal enough to impose Section 163 (i.e. section 144 of the earlier Criminal Code), prohibiting the gathering of four or more citizens at any one place in the area.

Wangchuk was heard to ask a very telling question of a police officer: “Am I in India or in China”?

Just to note in passing that in totalitarian China, there exist designated places where such peaceful protests may be held; clearly, the Tiananmen episode of 1989 has been a learning experience for them.

In conclusion, it doesn’t seem that Gandhians and Buddhists are after all doing so well in this “land of Gandhi and Buddha.”

In contrast, protestors carrying instruments of harm, blaring hate-filled slogans, insisting on passing through sensitive lanes and bylanes of cities, to carry out the immersion of idols seem to fare far better than the Gandhians and the Buddhists.

In such places, and on such potentially violent occasions, no Section 163 is thought necessary, nor, perish the thought, the preventive detention of those who openly mean to disturb the peace. But have not historians written so often that it is as perplexing to unravel the complexities of Bharat as it is to fathom the making of the universe.

The Rotarians surely have had better luck than the real Gandhians for now. Having spent my baby years in Kargil, Sonam Wangchuk can rest assured that I know exactly where he comes from.

Badri Raina taught at Delhi University.


ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.  Donate


Badri Raina
Badri Raina is a well-known commentator on politics, culture and society. His columns on the Znet have a global following. Raina taught English literature at the University of Delhi for over four decades and is the author of the much acclaimed Dickens and the Dialectic of Growth. He has several collections of poems and translations. His writings have appeared in nearly all major English dailies and journals in India.

Radical Transformation or Change? — A Critical Assessment of Mexico’s First Progressive Government

The analysis evaluates the presidency of Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO), examining key changes made during his administration as well as the constraints AMLO faced. Ultimately, it explores the question of whether his presidency resulted in genuine transformation or merely incremental changes.

By Sebastián Olvera

October 18, 2024

Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.


Claudia Scheinbaum with AMLO

The term transform originates from the Latin transformare, meaning to modify or reshape something. Change, on the other hand, comes from cambiare, which signifies the replacement of one thing with another. In socio-political terms, changes are processes that produce limited variations within specific areas of reality and can be initiated by individuals or groups. In contrast, transformations are profound, systemic alterations to the social order that require the participation of the majority to be realized. Historically, for this reason, processes of transformation have been far less frequent than those of mere change.

Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) embarked on a mission to bring about a profound transformation of public life in Mexico during his six-year presidency. As he explains on page 231 of his book Gracias (Thanks), the Fourth Transformation (4T)—following the country’s three previous major upheavals: the War of Independence (1810–1821), the Reform Era (1857–1861), and the Mexican Revolution (1910–1920)— is built around “…four fundamental pillars: rescuing the state’s political institutions, reforming the economic model, promoting moral governance, and cultivating a new national consciousness.” These four objectives defined the ambitious political program of Mexico’s first 4T government.

AMLO’s presidency witnessed several significant changes. Among them were a reduction in poverty by 5.2 million people, a partial recovery of national sovereignty from multinational mining and agribusiness corporations, historic increases in the minimum wage, the construction of large-scale infrastructure projects, and notable economic growth, particularly in the southeastern region of the country.

However, there remains a critical gap between intention and action—a reality that cannot be overlooked. The challenges inherent in reconfiguring Mexican society are numerous and deeply entrenched. Transforming reality is far from straightforward; it is the result of long-standing socio-historical forces. Neither political charisma nor governing experience is sufficient to alter these dynamics. Achieving meaningful transformation requires, as a conditio sine qua non, the active political mobilization of the masses.

Moreover, any profound transformation of social reality is constrained by Mexico’s position within the international system. First, Mexico’s economy is deeply integrated into the global capitalist framework. In 2023 alone, the country’s international trade totaled $588 billion in exports and $594 billion in imports, with foreign direct investment over the six-year period exceeding $140 billion.

Additionally, Mexico occupies a relevant position as a vital zone of influence of the United States, one of the most powerful and interventionist nations in modern history[i]. The political and economic interests of the U.S. elite in Mexico are so deeply entrenched that even a purely domestic issue, such as judicial reform, sparked a political-diplomatic dispute between the Mexican Presidency and the U. S. ambassador Ken Salazar[ii]. These are but a few of the external forces that resist any substantial political change in Mexico.

Given this context, it is worth asking whether a genuine transformation of Mexican society took place during AMLO’s presidency, or if his term was characterized more by incremental changes. How profound were these changes, and to what extent did they benefit the majority? To explore these questions, we will now evaluate the president’s four main political objectives and assess their impact on social welfare and justice.
Rescuing the State

For López Obrador, rescuing state institutions meant that his party Morena (Movimiento de Regeneración Nacional/National Regeneration Movement) gaining control of the government apparatus to advance his reform agenda. In this regard, a notable shift did occur, as it marked the first time in modern political history that a center-left government came to power in Mexico.

In the liberal interpretation of Mexico’s institutional democratization—a prevailing paradigm[iii]—this process began with the 1977 Political Reform and culminated in 2000 with the right-wing National Action Party (PAN) assuming power under Vicente Fox Quesada. According to this view, democracy is narrowly defined by laws, political parties, and institutions. Thus, the narrative concludes neatly with the arrival of the right, a political shift that altered the balance of power but failed to meaningfully change the political system or deliver substantial benefits to the majority.

This is not the forum to fully deconstruct or counter this interpretation, but it is important to note that such a legalistic and institutional approach overlooks a crucial element in Mexico’s democratization: the cycles of social mobilization. The latest of these cycles began in 1968 with the middle-class student movement and found expression in Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas’ 1988 candidacy, followed by AMLO’s campaigns in 2006, 2012, and ultimately his victorious 2018 campaign—an election that signified a true alternation in political power.

From this broader perspective, AMLO’s ascent is the outcome of a long-standing, plural process of struggle, reform, and popular demands. Throughout his career, AMLO skillfully capitalized on widespread social discontent fueled by decades of extreme inequality, elite exploitation, and a steady decline in the quality of life for most Mexicans. His 2018 electoral victory—backed by 30 million votes—can thus be seen not so much as a catalyst for systemic change, but as a mechanism for the system’s self-preservation; a means to tame the “tiger”[iv].

Some of AMLO’s most notable governance achievements include the elimination of presidential immunity, the strengthening of social policy with an investment of $151.69 million, reducing fuel theft (huachicol) by over 94%, and increasing tax revenue to a record $196.63 million. He also passed constitutional reforms to restructure the judiciary, enshrine certain social programs in the Constitution, and prevent tax waivers for large corporations.

Nevertheless, these changes have not fundamentally altered the political landscape. While the system has experienced intense shifts, the core power structures remain largely intact. The political alternation allowed Morena officials to occupy high and mid-level positions within the executive branch, yet the vast bureaucratic machinery—acting as a restorative force—has stayed in place.

Furthermore, Mexico’s elite and power groups continue to exert significant influence over the government. Although Morena has established itself as the dominant political force in the federal Congress, state legislatures, and several states and municipalities, business elites and organized crime, though weakened in some regions, retain enough power to safeguard their interests. Examples include figures like Francisco Cabeza de Vaca, a politician with a criminal background who moves freely from one position of power to another, evading prosecution. Similarly, oligarchs such as Salinas Pliego and Germán Larrea continue to amass enormous fortunes without facing accountability.

Within Morena itself, there are growing concerns over cases of nepotism, corruption, and cronyism. Figures like Alfonso Romo, Scherer Ibarra, and Ricardo Monreal have expanded their influence, reflecting a trend of the party being gradually co-opted by elements of the old political class, who now wear the party’s maroon colors while remaining closely tied to political power.

In essence, the capitalist state, under a reformist, presidential regime, remains operational. It administers a mass policy centered on social reforms and rights aimed at improving the living conditions of the majority and mitigating social discontent.
The Economic Model

In terms of transforming the economic model, López Obrador’s administration aimed to address the needs of the most vulnerable sectors and implement significant labor reforms. Through the Secretariat of Welfare, cash transfer programs were promoted to support key population groups: seniors over 65, primary school students, and single mothers. Additionally, labor reforms were enacted to regulate outsourcing, strengthen union organization, and increase the minimum wage to levels not seen in decades.

The government’s slogan, “For the good of all, the poor come first,” resulted in a significant reduction of poverty. According to Coneval, between 2018 and 2022, 5.1 million people rose out of poverty. This improvement can be largely attributed to wage increases (65.7%) and cash transfers (17.2%)[v].

However, it is important to note that a third of the population—nearly 47 million people—remains in poverty. Moreover, the reduction occurred mainly in moderate poverty, while the number of people in extreme poverty rose by 407,000. At the same time, the percentage of people without access to healthcare services increased by 250%. These statistics suggest that social programs are not reaching those in deepest need—the poorest of the poor.

Another critical point is that Coneval’s category of monetary transfers includes not only social programs but also remittances. In 2022, remittances accounted for around 4% of Mexico’s GDP and represented at least 35% of average per capita household income[vi]. This implies that a portion of the income used to reduce poverty came not from the government, but from the labor of Mexican workers abroad —many of whom were compelled to migrate due to poverty.

Labor income presents additional complexities. Increases in the minimum wage led to a historic real wage growth of around 110%. Wages were also regionalized and supported by a fiscal policy that, for the first time in decades, enhanced the purchasing power of working families in municipalities along the northern and southern borders. In these regions, the value-added tax (IVA) on goods and services was reduced from 16% to 8%, and the minimum wage was set at $21.06 per day, compared to $13.98 in the rest of the country.

This shift addressed a long-standing debt to the working class that neoliberal governments had neglected for decades. Over the last 40 years, wage policy was designed to make Mexico attractive to foreign capital at the expense of workers’ purchasing power. According to UNAM’s Center for Multidisciplinary Analysis, by 2016, the cumulative purchasing power of the minimum wage had fallen by 79.55% compared to 1987[vii].

Therefore, the recent minimum wage increase is historic not just for its real growth, but because it begins to reverse a decline that persisted for over 30 years. Nevertheless, this increase remains insufficient to restore the purchasing power of previous decades, enable social mobility, or eliminate wage poverty among workers.

As of now, in a household of four members where two adults work full-time at the minimum wage, the combined income of $839.09 per month is not enough to cover both the basic food and non-food baskets, which cost $934.46 according to Coneval’s Poverty Line by Income. In other words, two full-time minimum-wage workers still cannot adequately support a family with two children. To live with dignity, one adult would need to work approximately 18 hours a day, or the minimum wage would need to rise to at least $31.15, 2.2 times its current level.

What this reveals is that, while positive changes have been made, the economic system remains largely untransformed, continuing to rely on inequality and exploitation. The starkest evidence of this is that, while the minimum wage still fails to cover the extended basic basket and a third of the population remains in poverty, the combined wealth of Mexico’s five richest families grew by an average of 226% during this administration[viii].
Moralizing the Government Apparatus

Moralizing the government has been one of the most complex challenges for AMLO. His primary proposal was to eradicate corruption from the state apparatus, famously encapsulated in his metaphor of “sweeping the stairs from top to bottom.”

To this end, López Obrador promoted the Republican Austerity Law, classified corruption as a serious crime, and restructured the National Anti-Corruption System. Oversight, investigation, and enforcement duties were enhanced through institutions like the Secretariat of Public Function, the Financial Intelligence Unit, and the Attorney General’s Office. Key actions included freezing some 20,000 bank accounts tied to organized crime, eliminating high-level officials’ major health insurance policies, canceling tax amnesties for large taxpayers, and terminating the exorbitant pensions of former presidents.

These efforts are undeniably significant. However, the results the government had anticipated were not fully realized, as corruption persists within the system. For example, none of the major corruption scandals from previous administrations have been resolved. Key figures implicated in cases like the $393.26 million Estafa Maestra scheme or the $200 million Agronitrogenados-PEMEX fraud remain unpunished[ix].

Moreover, nepotism, embezzlement, and cronyism continue to plague various levels of government. In 2022, it was reported that 196,000 public works contracts were awarded directly by municipalities without competitive bidding. The SEGALMEX case, involving the embezzlement of at least $842.70 million, illustrates the persistence of high- and mid-level officials defrauding the public coffers within the federal government.

More troubling is the lack of progress in federal investigations involving high-ranking officials, military commanders, or members of the political elite. A notable example is the obstruction of the investigation, starting in 2022, into the disappearance of the 43 Ayotzinapa students, which demonstrates that mechanisms of impunity within the government remain intact.
A Shift in Mindset

The creation of a new school of thought refers to fostering critical thinking, historical awareness, and a collective consciousness within the population. In this regard, it can be argued that AMLO’s presidency sparked a process of politicization, particularly among the working class, youth, rural communities, and Mexican migrants in the United States. While this is not a full-fledged revolution of consciousness, it does signify a shift in the mindset of a significant portion of the population. For the first time in this century, it has become more common for people to discuss politics and take an interest in their rights.

López Obrador has successfully responded to criticism from the right, its commentators, and intellectuals by positioning a public debate agenda, largely through his daily press conference, the Mañanera. This platform has allowed the government not only to defend its policies but also to promote alternative narratives that strengthen its position. It has provided the public with tools to understand power dynamics and foster a critical perspective.

The media landscape has also been reshaped by the rise of independent outlets. With the growth of digital platforms and greater internet access, information sources have diversified, challenging the monopoly once held by major media outlets over public opinion.

However, these changes should not be overstated. Only 68% of households have internet access, and most users are concentrated in urban areas, limiting the reach of independent media. Additionally, the politicization of the population remains uneven. While more people are informed and willing to express political opinions, their capacity to develop independent and nuanced perspectives is limited. In many cases, the need to defend perceived government successes overshadows critical thinking.

A further issue arises from the president’s pragmatism and the confusion caused by some of his more deterministic statements. By focusing on corruption as the nation’s primary problem, López Obrador often overlooks other systemic issues, such as the exploitation of the working class, the lack of opportunities for young people to pursue education or dignified employment, the mechanisms of oppression and violence faced by women (particularly the most disadvantaged), and the dispossession of land from communities by large extractive companies.

One of the most troubling examples of this is the case of Samir Flores, an indigenous activist who opposed the Morelos Integral Plan’s energy megaprojects. Samir was murdered one month after the president referred to him and his fellow activists as “radical conservatives.” While AMLO’s words did not directly cause the murder, they contributed to the atmosphere in which it occurred. The lack of an apology and the fact that nearly six years later the crime remains unsolved only exacerbate the problem.

The president’s ideological interpretation of Mexico’s political reality is also problematic. He divides the entire political spectrum into liberals and conservatives, equating the left with liberalism and the right with conservatism. This binary reductionism extends to his view of Morena, which he divides into “monks” and “politicians.” According to AMLO, the “monks” defend principles, values, and ideas, while the “politicians” focus on practical effectiveness, negotiating and compromising to get things done.

It is revealing to analyze how positions of power have been distributed in the government under this framework. None of the so-called “monks” were appointed to key ministries such as Interior, Foreign Affairs, Economy, or Hacienda and Public Credit (tax collection). Instead, prominent Morena intellectuals were sidelined from decision-making circles. For instance, Paco Taibo II was relegated to the government’s editorial Project (Fondo de Cultura Económica), and Armando Bartra and Rafael Barajas were given roles at Morena’s National Institute of Political Formation, which never received the resources AMLO had promised. Only Elvira Concheiro served in a key position as National Treasurer, and her brother Luciano was appointed a deputy minister in the Ministry of Public Education.

In contrast, high-ranking positions were awarded to opportunistic allies and figures less committed to the party’s ideals. Marcelo Ebrard, a capable but opportunistic politician, served as Foreign Minister throughout AMLO’s term, while businessman Alfonso Romo, involved in influence peddling, acted as Chief of Staff at the Presidency. Similarly, Senate and congressional seats were given to individuals hostile to the Fourth Transformation. One particularly contentious case was that of Sergio Mayer, who received a proportional representation seat in the Senate despite opposing several key Morena initiatives, provoking intense debate within party’s social base[x].

In summary, the allocation of power within the government and Morena reveals that the leadership has often sacrificed principles for perceived efficacy, though the latter has rarely been achieved. These compromises have slowed the progress of the Fourth Transformation’s political project.
Final Assessment

What is the balance of AMLO’s six-year term? It seems that the idea of a profound transformation of reality was, in practice, reduced to the achievable changes —some significant, others minimal— that the government was able to implement through reforms that avoided confronting the major interests of the dominant classes. This reflects the primary political limitation of Obrador’s progressivism.

This does not make the president a bad leader, nor does it make his administration the worst in history. AMLO’s government stands in sharp contrast to those of Ernesto Zedillo, Vicente Fox, Felipe Calderón, and Enrique Peña Nieto. Despite its many limitations, Obrador’s populist mass politics have led to verifiable improvements for millions of people.

In many households, wage increases and state welfare programs allow families to put more food on the table. Millions of senior citizens can now afford their medications thanks to the pensions they receive every two months. Thousands of students no longer have to choose between paying for transportation or buying a sandwich at school. These changes, though far from delivering comprehensive social welfare or dignified living conditions, are perceived as positive steps by millions. From the left, we should acknowledge these gains.

A similar shift has occurred in the mindset of broad social sectors regarding access to information and critical engagement. While this cannot be called a revolution of consciousness, there is a growing process of politicization across wide segments of society. Critical capacities must now be developed to recognize failures, address persisting problems, and propose solutions. But this is a starting point.

However, recognizing these achievements should not blind us to the errors and limitations of mexican progressivism. Mexico remains a country where, ten years later, the disappearance of the 43 Ayotzinapa students remains unresolved. Where 3 out of 10 people are trapped in poverty, regardless of their efforts. Where young people often find it easier to join organized crime than to access quality education or decent jobs. Ultimately, Mexico is a place where the majority of workers face some of the longest workweeks in the world, yet their wages remain insufficient to lift them out of poverty.

We must reflect on what it truly means to transform such a reality. The recent six-year term demonstrates that changing the social order is not a brief process, nor can it be the work of a single individual. While supporting progressive candidates, engaging in occasional protests, and criticizing neoliberalism are important steps in building collective consciousness, these actions alone are insufficient to achieve social welfare and justice. For this, the organized and independent participation of the popular majority is essential.

In his Essay on a Headless Proletariat, José Revueltas -a prolific socialist intellectual and militant- argued that despite the Mexican working class’s deep traditions of struggle and strong conviction in action, it has not built an independent organizational structure and developed its own political project. These deficiencies have prevented the working class from pushing for a transformation that truly benefits them. As a result, since the Revolution, the dominant classes have relegated popular sectors to the role of a social and electoral base for their own projects. This situation of subjugation largely persists today.

A key lesson for the second government of the Fourth Transformation, now led by Claudia Sheinbaum, is that the organized and independent action of the working class is crucial to transcend its role as an electoral army and support base. To achieve this, the politicization of the lower classes must be nourished by critical thinking. This will help the masses set limits on the somewhat naïve and occasionally fanatical attitudes that can emerge. The free and informed exchange of ideas on key issues is fundamental. The Mañanera conferences and the media can serve as useful tools for information, but they must be filtered through thoughtful reflection and analysis.

Additionally, urgent discussions need to take place on the following issues: What rights, reforms, and laws should be demanded from the new Sheinbaum administration? How can mobilization be used as a tool for autonomous pressure and defense, rather than as a top-down call to action? Why do Morena’s grassroots and supporters, who win elections, lack decision-making power on fundamental party issues? What are the government’s limits, and how can they be overcome? These reflections are essential to hold the new government accountable, push for necessary changes, and halt any harmful policies.

To advance in this direction, assembly-based committees could be formed in neighborhoods, communities, schools, and workplaces. These spaces would allow people to deliberate on collective needs and agree on actions to address them. Self-management and demands on the government could serve as complementary tactics to achieve social welfare from the ground up.

This could determine whether the “progressive cycle” in Mexico concludes with the return of the right and the reversal of the positive changes achieved. We must remember that reforms, laws, and programs are merely words on paper, which can be altered or dismantled, if necessary through the use of force. The experiences of the Southern Cone in past decades remind us that whenever the working class failed to transcend the reformism of progressive governments, right-wing counter-movements arose to undo their gains.

The dominant classes always seek to reclaim power when progressivism enters a phase of wear or crisis. Whether through attrition, conflict, and systematic attacks, as in Bolivia and Venezuela. Or through soft or hard coups, as seen in Ecuador, El Salvador, and Nicaragua. In their most reactionary forms, such as in Argentina and Brazil. Right-wing movements dismantled the gains of previous governments in all thar cases. These lessons should not be forgotten. The government of Andrés Manuel López Obrador contributed to creating a context of greater politicization and implemented reforms that led to improvements. However, his tendency toward class conciliation limited the scope of these changes. The new government under Claudia Sheinbaum—though it deserves the benefit of the doubt—has already shown signs of following the same path, as evidenced by the announcement that there will be no push for a tax reform targeting great fortunes[xi]. Therefore, it is up to the working class to organize and use the gains made as stepping stones toward achieving true justice and welfare for the majority. Only then can we genuinely speak of a transformation in Mexico.

[i] Sebastián Olvera, “Ken Salazar, la reforma judicial y los intereses estadounidenses en México (II).” En un 2×3, September 2024. https://enun2x3.info/2024/09/ken-salazar-la-reforma-judicial-y-los-intereses-estadounidenses-en-mexico-ii/

[ii] Sebastián Olvera, “Ken Salazar, la reforma judicial y los intereses estadounidenses en México (I).” En un 2×3, August 2024. https://enun2x3.info/2024/08/ken-salazar-la-reforma-judicial-y-los-intereses-estadounidenses-en-mexico-i/

[iii] José Woldenberg, Historia mínima de la transición democrática en México. Mexico City: Colegio de México, 2012.

[iv] “Tiger” was the metaphor used by AMLO during a 2018 meeting with bankers and businessmen to describe the Mexican people. He warned that if the de facto powers intervened in the elections, as they did in 2006 and 2012, and he lost, he would not step in to control the anger of the majority. He concluded with the now-iconic phrase: “I want to know who will tame the tiger”.

[v] CONEVAL, “Medición de la pobreza en México”: https://www.coneval.org.mx/Medicion/Paginas/PobrezaInicio.aspx

[vi] CONEVAL, “Documento de análisis sobre la medición multidimensional de la pobreza 2022”: https://www.coneval.org.mx/Medicion/MP/Documents/MMP_2022/

[vii] Centro de Análisis Multidisciplinario, “Reporte de Investigación 126. El salario mínimo: un crimen contra el pueblo mexicano”, UNAM: https://cam.economia.unam.mx/reporte-investigacion-126-salario-minimo-crimen-pueblo-mexicano-cae-11-11-poder-adquisitivo-sexenio-pena-nieto/

[viii] Dora Villanueva, “Los 5 hombres más ricos multiplicaron su fortuna con AMLO”, La Jornada (México: 23/07/2024).

[ix] Transaparencia Mexicana, “Corrupción seguirá siendo reto para el próximo gobierno: Transparencia Mexicana”, 29/01/2024: https://www.tm.org.mx/corrupcion-seguira-siendo-reto-para-el-proximo-gobierno-transparencia-mexicana/

[x] Sebastián Olvera, “Morena y la crítica: Argumentos y contraargumentos.” En un 2×3, July 2024. https://enun2x3.info/2024/07/morena-y-la-critica-argumentos-y-contraargumentos/

[xi] Sebastián Olvera, “Sheinbaum frente al poder económico.” En un 2×3, June 2024. https://enun2x3.info/2024/06/sheinbaum-frente-al-poder-economico/




ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.  Donate



Sebastián Olvera
Sebastián Olvera is a socialist activist who combines precarious work with sociopolitical research and analysis. He writes about national and international political dynamics, with a focus on labor movements, and the impact of neoliberalism on Latin America. You can follow him on Twitter at @SebOlve.

Clickbait, AI and Global Boiling

By Michael Albert

October 18, 2024

Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.



This may seem like a big step away from the day’s main topics, the U.S. Israeli genocidal warism, the rising tide of demented fascism, and the election to end all elections, but it isn’t. It may even be a step into these grotesque phenomena.

To start, I am confused about clickbait. And you might wonder, how could I not understand clickbait? Well, of course I understand why clickbaiters just want us to see their ads and don’t give a damn about anything else. I also know it isn’t just corporate advertisers with ads who offer clickbait. Trump fans do it. Harris fans do it. And the left too spends considerable effort on clickbait, especially when fund raising. But lying to attract eyeballs, however odious, is not what I don’t understand.

Clickbait has become so ubiquitous and undisguised that it’s a bit like Trump. No pretense. No shame. Right out front. Lie baby lie. If you go on YouTube, you will initially see an array of video offerings. The titles will typically say something will be in the video. You look. Whoa, it isn’t there. Or perhaps it’s there for one minute out of ten. No denial. No one is surprised. Everybody knows. Clickbait lies. So what don’t I get?

I don’t get why it works. I don’t get why we click clickbait. And I admit that I know it works not least because I know it works on me. When I first started watching YouTube videos, I was interested in various science topics and watched good science-related videos. Then I added some sports videos to see event highlights. Back then there were no ads or at most maybe one or two, and no clickbait.

But over the years clickbait has spread, so now even science stories and sports highlights have adopted an element of misdirection to gain attention, not to mention that once they hook an audience the hosts add more and still more ads.

A few months back, I started to watch videos about the election, war, and climate and for all three the clickbait was blatantly immense and worked. I would click a link to see what the title promised. I would angrily note that what was promised wasn’t there. I would click another link and be annoyed again. I would click another one, and another. Why the hell did I click on this misdirection? Why did I keep doing it? Was it because I just I wanted it to be honest? Was it because they had a hook in my head? Was it because—well, I don’t know what it was because of—but I do know it is hard to not click. Egad. I just clicked again. Having never been sucked into Facebook or Twitter or the rest of that, my clicking on clickbait confuses me.

And now, before returning to ubiquitous lying, we come to the topic of artificial intelligence. I have written considerably about AI before, but I bring it up again because an experience I had this past week confuses me. Steve Shalom and I both sent a Q&A article on the war that we recently published to various people and one of those people, an old friend of Steve’s, happened to have an AI product he could set loose on it. This product, Notebook-LM, calls itself a helpmate for people, particularly writers. You feed what you write into it and then prompt Notebook-LM to change the tone of your writing, fix its style, or summarize it. You can ask it to do research for you. You can have it rewrite parts or even write the whole piece in the first place. You can ask it for criticism. You can ask it to create a podcast episode. Yes, you could feed it this essay, or anything, and ask for a podcast version. Down the road a way, no doubt we will be able to verbally converse with it. We will ask it not only for all the above, but to submit our work to publishers. Then the publishers will have their own AI receive and decide on it. So what? Where’s my confusion?

A step back before two steps forward may help. AI has provoked two kinds of consternation from a great many people. The first fear is that AI would attain a capacity for very high level independent activity called artificial general intelligence, where AGI would be as capable of or outshine humans in all manner of activities. The fear is that AGI would then escape human control and hurt, and enslave, or annihilate us.

The second fear is that bad actors would create videos of people saying and doing things that they’d never said or done. Scammers and grifters would cheat people. Evil empires, like the U.S., would additionally spy or create biological weapons or guide tactical weapons right up our nostrils with it.

And the truth is that barring a technical or social impediment, these two types of fears are each valid. Running wild against humans may occur. Nefarious use already occurs and steadily escalates. The social possibility to abort these dangers is that societies get unbridgeable control of AI and use that control to wisely and effectively limit AI uses. It’s a long shot, but it’s conceivable. The technical possibility to abort these dangers is that while AI’s growth has been incredibly startling for a considerable period of time, maybe there’s a lid on AI’s capacity. Maybe there is no AGI.

You can think of AI as a ton of connected nodes where each node has attached numbers. Programmers increase the number of nodes by packing more in. They increase the effectivity of the attached numbers by enlarging the quality and quantity of information they train the AI on. So the lucky technical hope is that maybe the computing power needed to add more nodes will become too costly or AI firms will just run out of new information for further training. If not that, then maybe AI’s capabilities will soon no longer increase as its handlers add to the number of nodes or improve the training materials.

An eye blink ago, concerned computer scientists saw all that and put forward a number of proposed social guidelines for AI innovations that should not be permitted without first developing a tremendous amount of preventive clarity and effective control. One such step was that AIs should not roam free on the Internet. AIs should not cross borders, should not link up one to the next, to the next, etc. But despite the warning, AIs now roam and link.

A second warning from founders in the field was that AIs shouldn’t prompt other AIs or access other programs. But that is now a built-in capability, not blocked but utilized. It seems the threat of AI going rogue still exists, but it doesn’t constrain the people working on AI. The nefarious bad actor worry about AI misuse also still exists, but there’s not much being done to curtail that either.

My own worries about AI are, nonetheless, mostly about its impacts when used by so-called good actors trying to do so-called good things. One form of my concern which did exist widely for awhile but is now declining as a worry even though the danger is still exactly what it was earlier, or worse, is about the impact AGI would have on jobs and, as a result, on society’s distribution of income and circumstances. The concern still exists, but the people who fund AI seek profits and thus work to silence whatever might interfere with profits. Their unimpeded effectivity is pretty remarkable, given that one of the jobs to be decimated is programming. And yet I have another concern that I fear almost nobody voices.

As AI becomes more and more capable, I fear it will do more and more human-like things and will very significantly reduce what humans do that is human-like. And this brings me to the AI experience that Steve Shalom and I recently had.

Steve sent the Q&A, and it is about 6,000 words, to a friend who had on his computer the capacity to work with Notebook-LM, an AI offering from Google at the cutting edge of certain capabilities. So this friend loaded our Q&A into his Notebook-LM which is exactly what people using that AI are supposed to do. Writers, for example, are supposed to put in everything they have ever written—books, articles, letters, musings, notes, whatever it might be—to then be able to not only instantly access forgotten views, but also cull from them, ask questions of them, request new versions of them, and much more.

So, Steve’s friend prompted his Notebook-LM to create a podcast making the Q&A’s points. His AI helpmate received the Q&A and in about five minutes developed a lengthy podcast in which two people, one man and one woman, discussed the issues of the election in accord with the content of the Q&A.

And here’s the thing, the voices were indistinguishable from human voices. They were AI voices but you could not listen, or at least I could not listen and say to myself oh, that’s an AI that’s talking. The presentation was human-like. It had pauses. It had interruptions. It had humor. It had intonation. It had more of all that than I have. It was like when I used to do RevolutionZ episodes with a friend, Alexandria Shaner, and we would banter a bit even as we would try to address the issues that we were trying to convey. So it was that Notebook-LM hatched two AI alter egos, two AI manifestations, and they bantered while they presented the Q&A content. Soon it will be human-looking robots doing not only audio, but video too.

The thing that was mind-boggling wasn’t only that it sounded so human but also that it so closely repackaged the AI’s every argument more accessibly than the original. It wasn’t just the style and words that were startling, and the bantering that was startling, but it got the content right too and it took five minutes to get the script and all else ready. If Steve and I who actually wrote the Q&A tried to turn it into a podcast in which the two of us were bantering back and forth to amuse and entertain as well as to get across the information, it would not take us five minutes to get a script. More like five days or five weeks. And I’m not sure we could do it at all. Now imagine Notebook-LM Version 2, or say, version 10….

So what’s the problem? What has confused me? Many people would say that’s terrific. That’s fantastic. It’s a super helpmate. It’s a buddy that gets something done which you want to have done and it does it really effectively, really well, and incredibly fast. Great! More time to be me! Really?

What confuses me is that response. What confuses me is that the AI did things that make humans human and it did them quickly and effectively and it may soon be doing them better than humans. Think about writing songs or stories, or about painting pictures, or even about producing films. Think about AGI, much more powerful than Notebook-LM, creating daily, weekly, or monthly plans for you to enact, or keeping your or the country’s finances, or going shopping for you. Think about it being your doctor, at your bedside having better bedside manners than your last doctor. AI can’t already do all that—I don’t think—but it can do lots, with more and indeed, barring a roadblock, with all of it coming. And for me that raises a question.

If AGI arrives and does more and more, what do humans still do? How many humans still multiply numbers and add big piles of them? Nobody. Calculators do it so well and so quickly that we use the calculator. Not to worry. The calculator has been what people say AGI will be—a welcome helpmate able to free us from some tedium (supposing the calculators haven’t also unintentionally weakened our minds like social media has weakened our attention spans).

Go back in time. Consider the invention of cameras. Most artists, before cameras, tried to exactly embody appearances in paintings. After cameras, direct representation declined and more abstract impressionist agendas emerged. Thus, in that case, like for the calculators, the innovation was like what people say about AI. Alarming at first, it became a useful helpmate that even spurred new human innovation. But what if AGI does replication but it also does abstraction and impression all better than people do?

Or consider when computers became by far the best chess players in the world. And then the best chess teachers. And then the source of most chess originality and innovation. Will the only problem be an increased ease of humans cheating with AIs while playing? Or will the trajectory be more concerning when there is literally a human-like robot sitting there, moving the pieces vastly more effectively than any human can? Is this like the fact that tractors can lift vastly more weight than people, but so what, weight lifters still compete? So, machines calculate, remember, replicate and refashion better than people. Bit deal. Tractors dig, pull, and lift better than people. So?

Another example? Consider all the paraphernalia that is now used to create music, both vocal and instrumental, so that humans don’t have to bother getting pitch right, or capturing the lyrics’ emotions, or even writing lyrics in the first place, or tunes, much less practicing for years on guitar, violin or flute. Same for acting and movies. Will creators get steadily lazier and lazier about developing skills that they can request from AGIs? Will the next Leonard Bernstein stand in front of a symphony of AGIs? Will the next Leonard Bernstein be an AGI? Will the human side of these crafts, indeed of all crafts, evaporate?

Too dramatic? Okay, what about when AGI reads in place of us, expresses content for us, and then also writes letters, manuals, essays, reviews, and books in place of us—in time without our even prompting it to do so? That time is effectively already ten seconds away, even without AGI. And what about when our own private AGI plans our days and weeks for us, shops for us, calls and talks to friends for us, baby sits our kids for us, and teaches them what little they still need or want to know?

What about when the AGI instantly answers all our questions and then starts providing us with answers without us even asking for them, so we then ask steadily less often because we get used to the AGI knowing everything and acting on “our knowledge,” so why do we need to even know—or act? Emotionally troubled about that? No problem. Consult your AI helpmate wearing “her” therapist hat.

If all that unfolds, will what’s happening be that the AGI is a helpful aid and with more free time we’re becoming more human? Or will what’s happening be that the AGI is at our request while we applaud taking over ever more activities that make us human, while we become more machine-like?

So what’s my confusion? It is that I wonder why other people don’t have my concern. Not the concern that AGI goes rogue. Not the concern that AGI is intentionally misused. Not even the concern that AGI has unintended consequences, like generating unemployment—all of which concerns are warranted and voiced—but my concern that AGI has attributes which humans will seek out and celebrate even while using those attributes will infantilize us.

To get still more graphic about it, will AGI be a bit like clickbait or heroin or any other drug that’s addicting? Is human infantilization an inexorable process? Will we use our “‘freed” time to flourish or veg out like in an opium den? Will AGI capabilities keep expanding, or will there be a point of diminishing returns for adding nodes and providing better training? Imagine when AGIs build new AGIs. So have I got this all wrong?

If people want to explain to me what I’m missing about clickbait and AI that will curtail my confusions, please do. I would like to be edified. For one thing, I would love it if your corrections would shine a brighter, happier light on immediate circumstances than the darkness that currently inhabits my own view of these trends.

And here’s how weird the AI thing already is. I’m working on turning my recent RevolutionZ oral history podcast episodes into a book. I’m doing all sorts of editing, adding, and deleting to make it a novel of a strange sort, an oral history of a future revolution. When I listened to the AI-created podcast based upon the Q&A, I thought to myself, yikes, self, should I feed the 180,000 words of the oral history into this thing. Should I ask it to do various work using its “talents” that I don’t have, but that maybe it now has—or if not now, may have soon. For example, I could prompt it to give the many interviewees each their own unique voice. Or maybe to make a movie from it, with AI actors, sets, and all. And some will think, great, do it. Just do it. We want to read the result. We want to see the result. In fact, you boob, why didn’t you just give it a prompt to write the thing in the first place? But others, including myself, may think. oh hell, is that really where we’re headed?

So to ease a confusion you may now have, why did I write this somewhat vague, quite disturbing, somewhat confused essay? I partly hoped to mirror what I think is probably going on in many people’s minds. Do you feel similar confusions? If so, you are not alone. Many people are upset at the clickbait dynamic which is getting to the point where to lie is not only normal, it’s so expected and so out front, that if people don’t do it, they’re deemed naive, foolish wimps. Lying is becoming the way to deal with daily life, not just to hide the fact that you’ve been nasty, or you’ve stolen stuff, or you’ve, I don’t know, done something untoward. Lie, or ghost, I guess. How long until parents aren’t good parents unless they teach their kids to lie about, or avoid, almost everything? But wait, there’s rogue, nefarious, and human infantilizing AI—to teach them for us.

I am sorry for all the downers, but of course bad outcomes are not inevitable. We can win better. Will we?

Finally, the planet warns us of impending gargantuan calamity by showing us immediate large calamities. Do we put our eyes in our pockets? Do we sound proof our ears? Do we embrace superficially calm and quiet, but actually blood pressure exploding desperation? Or perhaps instead do we lash out at whoever is handy especially if they won’t or even can’t hit back? Do we studiously avoid taking real action? Are we frogs boiling in a big pot even though we can hop out and turn off the stove?

Clickbait, AI and Global Boiling. They have one source. The institutions around us. There is no alternative to conceiving, sharing, seeking, and attaining an alternative. What we do about the institutions that pervert us, infantilize us, and cook us is our choice. We better choose wisely.


ZNetwork is funded solely through the generosity of its readers.  Donate
 


Michael Albert

Michael Albert`s radicalization occurred during the 1960s. His political involvements, starting then and continuing to the present, have ranged from local, regional, and national organizing projects and campaigns to co-founding South End Press, Z Magazine, the Z Media Institute, and ZNet, and to working on all these projects, writing for various publications and publishers, giving public talks, etc. His personal interests, outside the political realm, focus on general science reading (with an emphasis on physics, math, and matters of evolution and cognitive science), computers, mystery and thriller/adventure novels, sea kayaking, and the more sedentary but no less challenging game of GO. Albert is the author of 21 books which include: No Bosses: A New Economy for a Better World; Fanfare for the Future; Remembering Tomorrow; Realizing Hope; and Parecon: Life After Capitalism. Michael is currently host of the podcast Revolution Z and is a Friend of ZNetwork.